M. Suseela v Kerala Public Service Commission and The District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Kollam

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931** **WP(C).No. 36287 of 2009(E)** **---------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **M. SUSEELA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.N. GOPALAKRISHNAN, PAID SECRETARY, PAVITHRESWARAM PANCHAYATH VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KARIMPINPUZHA. P.O, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT KINARUVILA KIZHAKKATHIL,VENGA.P.O, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM.** **BY ADV. MR.B.HARISH KUMAR** **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** **1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, CORPORATION BUILDING,KOLLAM.** ## **R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 36287 of 2009 - E ---------------------------------------Dated 20th January, 2010** ## **Judgment** The petitioner applied for appointment as Clerk/Cashier in the Kollam District Co-operative Bank pursuant to a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The petitioner appeared for the written test held on 10.5.2008 with register number Q 200185. However, in the OMR answer sheet the petitioner did not correctly enter her register number by darkening the bubbles. The Commission invalidated her answer script for that reason and the fact of invalidation was published in Ext.P3 notification dated 9.12.2009. The petitioner thereupon moved the Secretary of the Kerala Public Service Commission by submitting Ext.P4 representation wherein she requested that her answer script may be valued and her name included in the rank list based on the marks secured by her. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 2 **W.P.(C) No.36287/2009** representation and pass orders thereon. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the first respondent to condone the defect in entering the register number in the OMR answer sheet and to value her answer sheet. 2. Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission submits on instructions that the petitioner did not enter her register number in the OMR answer sheet by correctly darkening the bubbles and that on that short ground her answer script was invalidated. He also submits that on the reverse of the answer sheet and in the general instructions issued to the candidates, they have been alerted about the need to correctly enter the register number in the OMR answer sheet and the consequences of failure to correctly enter the register number. Relying on a series of decisions of this Court including the decision in W.A.No.2487 of 2009, the learned counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission contended that the petitioner's answer script was rightly invalidated. 3. A reading of Ext.P4 representation establishes beyond 3 **W.P.(C) No.36287/2009** doubt that the petitioner herself admits that she had not correctly entered her register number in the OMR answer sheet. She has in Ext.P4 representation stated in unequivocal terms that the mistake in entering the register number was inadvertent. This Court has in a series of decisions including the decision in W.P.(C) Nos.29243 of 2004 and 34380 of 2008 held that failure to correctly enter the register number and the alpha code of the question paper booklet in the OMR answer sheet is not a curable defect and that the decision of the Kerala Public Service Commission to invalidate such answer scripts cannot be interfered with. In the first of the said cases, the candidate did not darken the bubbles showing the code of question paper booklet . It was held that as he did not comply with the instructions his answer sheet was correctly invalidated. In the second case, the candidate had wrongly entered the register number. The register number had to be entered as in the instant case by darkening the bubbles in the OMR answer sheet. The Commission invalidated her answer sheet for wrongly entering the register number. The action of 4 **W.P.(C) No.36287/2009** the Commission was upheld by this Court wherein this Court took the view that as the register number was not correctly entered, the answer sheet was rightly invalidated. In W.A.No.2487 of 2009, a Division Bench of this Court has considered the earlier decisions on the point including the decision of the Apex Court in **Karnataka Public Service Commission and others v. B.M.Vijaya Shankar and** **others** (AIR 1992 SC 952) and held that the action taken by the Kerala Public Service Commission to invalidate answer sheets wherein the register number had been wrongly entered cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner however relies on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in **Manoj Kumar v. Kerala Publilc Service Commission** (1999 (2) KLT 534) to contend that the Kerala Public Service Commission can permit defects to be cured at any time. In the said case, the Kerala Public Service Commission had invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. A ranked list was prepared wherein 5 **W.P.(C) No.36287/2009** Sri.Manoj Kumar was included as rank No.448. He contended that the application submitted by several others were defective and therefore such applications had to be rejected in terms of clause 14 of the general conditions forming part of the notification inviting applications. It was contended that the indulgence shown by the Commission to allow the defects to be cured has caused prejudice to him. The Commission resisted the said writ petition by contending that all the applicants who had applied pursuant to the notification inviting applications, whose applications were defective were given an opportunity to rectify the defects and that no one was discriminated against. It was also stated that the Commission had not thereby compromised any of the conditions regarding age, educational qualifications, experience etc. and that the Commission had only given an opportunity to the candidates who had submitted defective applications to prove that they possess the requisite qualification. The stand taken by the Kerala Public Service Commission was accepted by this Court. It was held that the Commission has acted fairly in allowing all 6 **W.P.(C) No.36287/2009** the applicants to cure minor defects wherever it had occurred without compromising the conditions regarding age, educational qualifications etc. and therefore no interference is called for. I am afraid the principles laid down by this Court in **Manoj Kumar's case** (supra) cannot apply to the case on hand. As noticed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2487 of 2009, it is to ensure fairness and secrecy in the examinations conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission that the Commission has issued various instructions including the instruction that the register number should be correctly entered and that it should be entered only in the space provided for the purpose. The Division Bench also held that for the admitted violation of instructions, no other decision could have been taken by the Public Service Commission except to invalidate the answer sheet and that such action was taken after the candidates were cautioned about the consequences of violation of instructions. On the admitted facts of this case, it 7 ## **W.P.(C) No.36287/2009** cannot be said that the invalidation of the petitioner's answer sheet is in any way irregular. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. **P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge** vaa